In yesterday's editorial, a pro-choicer defended abortion by quoting the Supreme
Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that said, in part, "people have
organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves
and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion."

In other words, people have gotten used to being allowed to have casual sex, free to
kill any children they might conceive as a result. This is a pretty cynical reason to
allow abortion.

A child is not a woman's property. Parents are the guardians of their children, not the
owners. To say we should treat children like garbage because their selfish, wasteful
parents are used to treating them that way is evil. We find homes for stray cats, give
furniture to charity, and recycle soda cans, yet flush children down the drain. What sad
priorities our affluence has led to!

Letter 302

In yesterday's editorial, a leader in the pro-choice movement defended abortion by
quoting the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that said, in part,
"people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their
views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of
abortion."

Let's translate this into plain English: People have developed sexual habits and made
choices about what kind of people they want to be, based on the assurance that they can
kill any babies they make but don't want.

In other words, this pro-choice leader thinks we should keep abortion legal because it
allows people to maintain their hedonistic and selfish lifestyles of casual sex.

To put it even more bluntly, she defends abortion on the grounds that some people would
rather kill their own children than give up their one-night stands.

That's a pretty disgusting defense.

Letter 315

A pro-choicer's column on Monday quoted National
Organization for Women spokeswoman Jeanne Clark: "Abortion saves women's lives. It
saves our futures. It saves our families. Indeed, it does personify our very right to
exist."

First of all, I'd like to know what kind of person
thinks her right to exist hinges on being able to annihilate another person. Most mothers
don't have this burning desire to pulverize their children.

Second, I'd like to know how killing children saves
families. What family could possibly be strengthened by its members killing each other?

However, in 1963, Planned Parenthood published a
pamphlet that said: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is
dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child
you cannot have it."

Now, I understand the financial reasons that made
Planned Parenthood change its mind about abortion. And they have publicly rescinded their
comments about abortion being dangerous, claiming they were referring only to illegal
abortions. But I want to know what made them change their minds about what the unborn is?
Why were they babies in 1963, but are now just "balls of cells," or "fetal
tissue," or any of the other names they now use? What scientific discovery was made
after 1963 that caused these people to suddenly decide that the unborn was not a baby
after all?

The rest of us, through real-time ultrasound and
advanced genetics testing, have learned that the unborn is more complex and sophisticated
than we had ever thought before. It seems to me that if somebody made some amazing
discovery that refuted all the rest of modern fetology, they'd publicize it, especially if
it helped their cause. I mean, if all the ultrasounds and genetic tests were discovered to
be as valid as Bigfoot sightings, wouldn't the scientific community be in an uproar?